Woman Awarded $20,000 After Being Arrested for Not Holding Escalator Handrail

By Kayla Kunkel December 7, 2019 at 12:09am

More than a decade after a Quebec woman was arrested for not holding an escalator handrail in a subway station, the Supreme Court of Canada has awarded her $20,000 for “psychological stress.”

In May 2009, Bela Kosoian entered the Montmorency subway station in Laval, Quebec, and descended using an escalator.

“Like many subway users, she did not hold the handrail,” the Supreme Court of Canada wrote in its Nov. 29 decision. “She leaned forward and rummaged through her bag.”

Constable Fabio Camacho of the Laval Police Department saw Kosoian failing to hold on to the handrail and “ordered her several times” to do so. Kosoian refused, and when she was met at the bottom of the escalator by law enforcement, she declined to identify herself.

“A few moments later, as she tried to leave, the police officer and a colleague took her by the elbows and led her to a holding room,” the Supreme Court summarized. “Given her refusal to provide a piece of identification and her agitated behaviour, the police officers handcuffed her with her arms crossed behind her back and forced her to sit on a chair.”

The officers searched through her personal belongings and then fined her $100 for “disobeying a pictogram indicating that the handrail should be held” and another $320 for “hindering them in their duties.”

According to CBC News, she was detained for around 30 minutes.

Although Kosoian’s infractions were dismissed in Montreal municipal court in 2012, she pursued further action and filed a $45,000 lawsuit against Camacho, the city of Laval and Société de transport de Montréal, the transit system that operates the Montmorency station.

Her suit was rejected by the Quebec court in 2015 and an appeals court in 2017.

The Supreme Court of Canada, however, awarded her $20,000 on Nov. 29. The police officer and STM are being held equally responsible for the damages.

Supreme Court sides with woman unlawfully handcuffed by Laval police, raises standards for police conduct https://t.co/Vidr414Pe8

— The Globe and Mail (@globeandmail) November 29, 2019

Camacho claimed he was acting under the impression that the pictogram illustrated a law instructing citizens to hold the escalator handrail — an impression he gained from training sessions led by STM.

But even though he was trained incorrectly, the Supreme Court still found him at fault for not knowing the law on his own.

“Before depriving K of her liberty, the officer had to ensure that there was valid legal justification for his actions,” the judges ruled.

“A reasonable police officer would have concluded that the pictogram simply advises users to be careful, despite the training received,” they said. “Therefore, the officer’s conduct necessarily constituted a fault insofar as it resulted from an unreasonable belief in the existence of an offence that did not exist in law.”

Do you think the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was fair?

Due to STM’s role in the incident, the judges also found the transit company at fault.

“If the police officer was at fault for believing that holding the handrail was an obligation, the STM was equally at fault for misinterpreting the by‑law and providing training accordingly,” the judges wrote.

Ultimately the judges found the incident a violation of Kosoian’s freedoms and privacy, and ruled in her favor.

Even though it was a long, difficult road, Kosoian told CBC News that she’s happy about the outcome, noting that it affects not only her but also all Canadians.

“When she took the escalator in the Montmorency subway station that evening, Ms. Kosoian certainly did not expect to end up sitting on a chair in a room containing a cell with her hands cuffed behind her back, nor did she expect to have her personal effects searched by police officers,” the judges wrote. “I have no difficulty believing that such an experience caused her significant psychological stress”

“In a free and democratic society, no one should accept — or expect to be subjected to — unjustified state intrusions. Interference with freedom of movement, just like invasion of privacy, must not be trivialized.”

Submit a Correction →